TORONTO, Ontario, July 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com)  A recent study suggesting that homosexual orientation results from biological factors in the prenatal environment is based on severely flawed research and biased assumptions, a leading Canadian psychiatrist has charged.

Researchers at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, conducted the study entitled Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and mens sexual orientation. The study suggested that male same-sex attraction results from an immune reaction on the part of the mother to the presence of the male child in her womb, a reaction the studys authors suggest stems from the gestation of previous male children. In other words, the study suggests, having biological older brothers leads to the development of homosexuality.

That suggestion is absolute utter rubbish, said psychiatrist Joseph Berger of the University of Toronto.

It [the study] should never have been published. I suspect it was not peer-reviewed properly or was reviewed by someone so biased and ignorant that they were unable to see the huge flaws and [are] essentially ignorant of the literature, he wrote in a review published by the National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (NARTH).

The studys assumption of a biological basis for homosexuality is a major glaring flaw, said Berger, since existing research has not produced conclusive findings indicating grounds for such an assumption.

Secondly, he pointed out, the study relies on the absolutely fatal flaw of assuming that siblings in the same family are exposed to identical environments in growing up.

Absolute utter rubbish. Even identical children are treated differently from birth. [In families,] this one is said to be more assertive, or calmer, or louder, or more anxious, etc, etc. When we come to children born at different times there are an ENORMOUS number of possible factors that might make for significant differences in upbringing that might effect how a child develops a sense of his identity and sexuality [authors emphasis].

The study also neglects to address other highly plausible explanations for the link between homosexual orientation and the presence of older biological brothers, Berger said, such as family tendencies to baby youngest children, delaying their maturity into an adult masculine identity.

There are many alternative explanations to the findings. It is totally inappropriate for anyone to claim certainty in a study like this because such a claim is obviously political, not scientific in nature.

I could go on and on, but psycho-dynamically-oriented clinicians have learnt these things from long experience, while activist-propagandists produce ignorant papers with quite bizarre speculations based upon nothing more substantial than fantasysuch as this absurd notion of some maternal immune response.

Mr. Berger, Ph.D, is a Distinguished Fellow with the American Psychiatric Association and a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for NARTH, as well as the author of The Independent Medical Examination in Psychiatry.

I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality. We should concede there may be -- may be, not is - a biological basis for homosexuality, and then we should add, "So what?" There may be a genetic basis for alcoholism, but no (sane) person is arguing that alcoholics should be allowed to show up at work drunk. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is like obesity: there may be a biological predisposition (weak or strong), that was caused by a genetic abnormality or a hormonal surge that went awry in the womb; and then environmental factors may play a part, too. In any case, one may think homosexuality is 100% biological, 100% environmental, or some combo of both, yet still maintain that sexual behavior is verboten.

I could go on and on, but psycho-dynamically-oriented clinicians have learnt these things from long experience, while activist-propagandists produce ignorant papers with quite bizarre speculations based upon nothing more substantial than fantasysuch as this absurd notion of some maternal immune response.

I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality. We should concede there may be -- may be, not is - a biological basis for homosexuality, and then we should add, "So what?" There may be a genetic basis for alcoholism, but no (sane) person is arguing that alcoholics should be allowed to show up at work drunk. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is like obesity: there may be a biological predisposition (weak or strong), that was caused by a genetic abnormality or a hormonal surge that went awry in the womb; and then environmental factors may play a part, too. In any case, one may think homosexuality is 100% biological, 100% environmental, or some combo of both, yet still maintain that sexual behavior is verboten.

I think a difference should be noted. Eye and height color may be genetically caused with not much that can be done with it; however, homosexuality may have a genetic predisposition, but that does not mean one's genes mandate (no pun intended) that one be a homosexual.

I know a few gay men and they all say that they resisted homosexuality throughout puberty and tried heterosexual relationships, including sex, but in vain. I don't know if it is a predisposition or biological, but I believe many gays are gay more for biological than environmental reasons.

I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality.

Speaking for myself only -arguing either way would necessarily require "proof". My position is that it is possible; however, UNLIKE a belief in God -such possibility requires proof...

I myself strongly oppose setting aside conventional wisdom, tradition, common law and enacted law based upon a leftist faith in homosexual sex that is premised in junk science and imposed by an activist judiciary...

I agree with you (that many gays are gay for biological reasons), and I think there's no contradiction with orthodox Judaism or Christianity to believe such. I think being homosexually inclined is akin to being diabetic: something went wrong in your body and you have to figure out a way to cope with that, rather than argue that you are exactly as you should be. (A diabetic who didn't try to correct his insulin deficiency or resistance would die.) The rules are the same for all of us, regardless of what our inclinations are or why we are so inclined: no messing around outside of heterosexual marriage. Beyond that, people of good will are free to debate the causes of homosexuality.

I know a few gay men and they all say that they resisted homosexuality throughout puberty and tried heterosexual relationships, including sex, but in vain. I don't know if it is a predisposition or biological, but I believe many gays are gay more for biological than environmental reasons.

I would not believe anything they said.

13
posted on 07/10/2006 11:53:51 AM PDT
by DungeonMaster
(More and more churches are nada scriptura.)

It is interesting - at this point the conservatives seem to want to argue that homosexuality is chosen and/or environmental while the liberals argue that is genetic or predetermined, so to speak. You make a good point, orientation and behavior are two different concepts. We can be attracted to all sorts of people, objects, whatever, but that doesn't mean we have to act on it. Hence, I think behavior almost always is a choice. Sexual orientation? At this point is appears to be both biological and environmental. One common misconception that people have is that if a trait or characteristic is determined by an experience or the environment it is easier to change. This is not necessarily true. We are born with somewhat undeveloped brains and our brains continue to develop via interaction with the environment. Therefore, early experiences can shape our brains in ways that very difficult to change later on. Perhaps children are born with a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality and then some critical childhood experiences (or lack thereof) lead to expression of this predisposition. One interesting line of research would involve studying those with the "genetic predisposition" who become heterosexual in orientation. Are there certain childhood experiences that may prevent homosexual orientation among vulnerable children?

You wrote: "I myself strongly oppose setting aside conventional wisdom, tradition, common law and enacted law based upon a leftist faith in homosexual sex that is premised in junk science and imposed by an activist judiciary..." I agree, my only caveat being that even if someone comes up with a scientific study that is not "junk" that concludes homosexuality is biologically based, that doesn't make homosexuality normal or homosexual behavior appropriate. There are thousands of handicaps people grapple with and there's no pretending those handicaps, such as Down Syndrome, are neutral, incidental variations in human beings. The NYTimes et al would like people to believe that being straight or being gay is like having blue eyes or brown eyes. My argument is that being gay is akin to being handicapped: whether the cause was biological or enviornmental or both, something went WRONG and the world should not have to change its rules to accomodate deviant behavior, even if the person didn't choose to want to engage in said behavior.

I agree with you. Predisposition cause(s) unknown may not be a choice in any or all cases; however, activity always is. In general, civil laws should be and have always been rationally premised in accomodating or sanctioning activities -not feelings...

The left argues feelings -which is why the left sponsors and pushes this type of "research" --WHICH as you and I both agree really is irrelevant to the legal question(s)...

There are a lot of things that feel perfectly natural that are environmentally induced. A single incident can influence your whole life, in small or big ways, but the same incident with another person's perspective may have no influence at all on him or her.

In my opinion, if you can "induce" homosexuality through child abuse or role model neglect, for example, the whole theory of genetics goes right out the window.

The National Education Association (NEA) has voted overwhelmingly to endorse same-sex "marriages." The action goes beyond "tolerance" to "acceptance" of the homosexual lifestyle as "normal" and "beautiful."

Critics of the measure have suggested that the union is venturing far afield from the objectives of educating the young and obtaining better pay and working conditions for teachers. "This whole issue is controversial and tangential to our goals," said Norman Person, an NEA member from California. "I don't see how it helps kids or teachers."

Franklin Butz, a gay member from New Jersey had the opposite view. "Educating the young about alternative lifestyles is central to our mission," said Butz. "Acceptance of alternative ways of living is more important than the mastery of mundane topics like math or reading. After all, computers can do our math. Television can supplant reading. But these devices can't replace the feelings we need to instill in our students."

Cynics assert that the foray into controversial political issues is aimed at diverting attention from poor test scores among public school students. "The endorsement of non-academic causes is symptomatic of the rot that pervades the NEA," said a disgruntled NEA member who asked to remain nameless. "I suppose if we get people riled over these issues they'll forget about the more fundamental failures of the system."

The NEA leadership's push for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues as a requirement for teacher credentialing has been impeded by the low reading comprehension of so many NEA members. It is a delicate matter since it is feared that the normal procedure of converting the message into pictographs might be too pornographic in this particular case.

if someone comes up with a scientific study that is not "junk" that concludes homosexuality is biologically based, that doesn't make homosexuality normal or homosexual behavior appropriate.

That's certainly a possibility, but we also have to look at all the available evidence and not just one study. And since all the available evidence includes ex-gays, any one study would have to be looked at from the bigger picture.

Actually, there may be a biological basis for all manner of perverted and criminal behavior. Nevertheless, this doesn't make it normal, desirable, or acceptable. Pedophiles, necrophiles, beastophiles, rapists, and pederasts can all make the same claim but, regardless, that is not an excuse to claim acceptability.

I also look at homosexuality as an "orientation", similar to other ways people use to get aroused. Just because a specific behavior arouses a person, does not mean they should be free to pursue that behavior. On a somewhat reasonable level there is porn. If a man is married, and exploring this behavior arouses him, should he have a right to pursue it, even if it hurts his wife? Maybe that activity is "required" for him to get aroused. Does that make it right?

What about voyeurism?? Possibly there are people who enjoy and are drawn to that, does that make it a right?

Of course not, in both cases, but once introduced to either situation, if a person finds it difficult to explore their sex life without either, it can be very difficult to "abstain", or so I am told. No way does that give them a "right" to pursue either, at the risk or detriment of others.

There are other proclivities even more extreme, but we won't go into those.

You are probably looking at a number of different factors, some biological, some gnentic and some enviromental. If that is the case then 'A" reason may not be established.

First you have possible genetic factors, then in the womb there are chemical being release that affect development. I imagine if you look at the level of the chemicals you would see a bell curve type of distribution with normal for male and female and then stanard deviations (no pun intended) from that norm. Then at puberty there are all sorts of hormones being released and the individual is sensitive to sexually inprinted patterns of behavior (which is why parents are so sensitive about having their kids protected from possible sexual predators).

If the behavioral patterns are out of sync with the biological disposition there is a lot of conflict for the individual.

I don't understand the "in vain" part. In terms of physical relationships, there is NOTHING a male can do with a male that they cannot do with a female. If you put a bag on your partner's head, how would you know what it is you were having sex with, if sex consisted only of non-vaginal activity?

Moreso, it is hard to imagine that vaginal sex would be different enough from anal sex to say that one "works" for you while the other doesn't.

It is much easier to get sexual gratification within the homosexual community, and some (many) women won't participate in the other types of activities that are related to homosexuality. But that's probably not what they meant either.

If they are talking about the attraction with the other personality, then things are much more complicated. Most heterosexuals are only attracted to a small number of people anyway. And many people DO have that attraction with people of the same sex, as that attraction does not HAVE to be associated with physical sexual activity.

My theory is that those close attractions COULD lead to sex if not for the societal "taboo" of having sex with someone of the same sex. History is replete with examples of cultural differences effecting what turns people on, and what people will do with others.

Many men would love to get oral sex. Again, with a bag over the head, would one be able to tell the sex of a person providing oral sex? Probably not -- so if you can overcome the "aversion" to contact with the same sex, you can get a lot more sexual pleasure accepting the homosexual lifestyle.

Going back to attractions, people are attracted to "types", and there are very masculine women and "feminine" men. A man might be attracted to a woman that has a more manly personality than the average man does, and be a heterosexual. Actually, that begs the question -- what IS the mechanism that wires a brain so that a male-personality female would NOT be attractive to a homosexual?

We know that a man can dress up like a woman, and men will date them and go home with them and kiss them and eventually will be grossed out only when they learn the truth.

But that just means that whatever it is that is wired in the brain which causes attractions, it is NOT the actual physical being (since the dressed-up man IS a man), but rather the brain's PERCEPTION of the person (who is dressed like a woman).

So why couldn't a homosexual be happy in a relationship with a woman who has male personality characteristics and dresses more like a man than a woman?

There was just a story about a lesbian who dressed up like a man and dated women. She said the women were not gay, although many of them wanted to have sex with her after they learned the truth -- I think because they were attracted to her maleness, and women aren't taught to be grossed out by other women's naked bodies like men are.

For example, men don't have partitions in the showers because we are taught not to look at each other, while women almost always have partitions because they don't want others looking at them.

"I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality."

You are correct. "Queer Theory" advocates argue against biological basis and says it is cultural. "Environment" is actually the liberal position on many things, eg, Freudianism, whether IQ is inherited, etc.

One interesting line of research would involve studying those with the "genetic predisposition" who become heterosexual in orientation. Are there certain childhood experiences that may prevent homosexual orientation among vulnerable children?

Interesting point indeed. A parallel line of inquiry has focussed on the question of "resilience" in people who, as children, experienced all manner of trauma and deprivation yet who overcame what would have appeared to be insurmountable obstacles and made a success of their lives.

Think about it for a second: if there were any sort of a biological basis for being gay, the idiots would not be prosyletizing and trying to make converts in the public schools, would they?

They would if it was a biological predisposition

In other words, if being gay was a result of biology AND environment, they would want to have every possible biologically-predisposed kid be exposed to a pro-hay environment to as to ensure they "turn" every potential recruit

37
posted on 07/10/2006 4:41:32 PM PDT
by SauronOfMordor
(A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)

"We should concede there may be -- may be, not is - a biological basis for homosexuality, and then we should add, "So what?" There may be a genetic basis for alcoholism, but no (sane) person is arguing that alcoholics should be allowed to show up at work drunk."

And then bare the double-edged sword to this whole silly leftist 'science' project, one that makes the liberals cringe,

"And if they do discover a 'gay gene,' wouldn't that be awful for the gay community? Just imagine all those breeders aborting kids with the gene to ensure grandkids..."

Then they have to decide whether they'd then choose between abortion rights or gay rights. Their heads will explode.

Well, I have to admit it wasn't my concept. But boy, was it a great one. Talk about making the Rats tear each other up. If they ever DO discover the gene, all hell will break loose on the left. Dare they (gasp!) impose a RESTRICTION on abortion? Or do they allow gays to be the victims of an in-womb Holocaust?

It will be interesting to see the division on the right on this issue, as well.

Here's something I found out in the process of looking for this article that really, really pisses me off. Doctors setting themselves up as the decisionmakers--because of political pressure--have NOT told some people whose children are at high risk about a test that would let them know if their kid will be born deaf or with a specific form or mental retardation. This seems to me something parents will want to know, and the test is something these folks deserve to know about. Yet deaf-nuts and Downs-nuts have pressured doctors away from even MENTIONING the tests, nominally out of their perception that 'it's okay to be deaf' and 'it's okay to have Down's,' but in reality, out of fear parents will selectively abort the deaf or retarded kids who are these nut groups' future. You can bet gays would try the same kind of thing if the gene is discovered.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.